• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread

I think it would be crazy giving Boro the game this Saturday to take it back and reinstate Southampton. The fact this whole spygate was discovered while or rather before the second leg should mean Boro play in their place in the final. If Southampton are reinstated I would think it a disgrace again.
 

TikaTakaTico said:
Yes but the validity of the result between Boro and Southampton has been called into question- but as a systemic issue it calls into question all of Southampton's results. So the only two fair outcomes I can see are Wrexham and Middlesbrough playing a semi and Hull playing the winner or hull playing Boro.

Ultimately Hull have to face someone I think (though they should probably have a case for a postponement).
Click to expand...

Screenshot_20260520_161809_com_google_android_googlequicksearchbox_GoogleAppActivi_edit_564195...jpg
 

Attachments

You must be logged on to see attachments
yfc54 said:
The thing that stood out in one the statements was that Southampton had spied on opponents within 72 hours of a match taking place. So does that mean it's ok to spy as long as it isn't within that timeframe?
Click to expand...
Outside of 72 hours, if you did it underhandedly, it would still fall under the old competing in good faith rules, it just wouldn't be covered by the newer, more specific rule.
 
MackemMagic said:
What a complete and utter farce this is


There's nothing to enquire about though- they've admitted it
Click to expand...
TBF I honestly think the EFL have been pretty decent here. The only farce is Southampton attempting an appeal (they should be docked a further four points for a spurious appeal process). Their behaviour is really outrageous- they know that the rules were changed after Leeds.
 
Behind Enemy Lines said:
The more I think about this, the more I think Hull should just be promoted. Southampton cheated so should be out. Boro lost the semi-final so should be out.
Click to expand...
But Boro lost to a team who cheated.

I don’t know that legally they can. But Southampton should be told if they appeal and lose there’s a 20 point deduction as punishment next season. No need for them to drag this on when they have admitted they cheated.
 
Fans are the ones being fucked over the most here. Bet there's some Boro fans hesitant to commit buying hotels, travel etc and prices will just go up and up the closer to the game, which is you know 3 days away and they still don't know if they're playing.
 
Zak's Dad said:
They admitted to spying on 2 other teams in their written submission, but I simply don't believe they spied on Oxford in November then left it to Ipswich the next year then Boro?

As I posted earlier on the thread their manager is famous for his meticulous team preparation, and spends the 3 training days before every match specifically focusing on set pieces and set up against the upcoming opposition. The whistleblower also said they often discussed which set plays the opposition might use and how to counteract them in meetings and during training. Also a number of teams have apparently discussed through the season how good Southampton were at dead ball routines and how surprisingly well they nullified opposing dead ball situations.

I reckon it was systematic through the staff and systematic over the league.
Click to expand...
That explains why Wrexham are saying the play-offs should be restarted. If it has been systematic, then other positions might have been affected.

Minefield.
 
Super Ted said:
The more I see of the Southampton argument that theyve lost out on potentially 200M the more I find it laughable.

They shouldnt have a shot of the 200M game because they cheated to get in it.
Click to expand...
And the arrogance of just assuming they're a given to beat Hull to begin with
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATS
Pantomime Mackem said:
I’ve no wish to fall out either but you’ve consistently had pointed out to you by me and others errors in your reading of EFL regulations and you don’t acknowledge them. The EFL have to get the game away on Saturday. If you think they don’t or if you think shortening the timetable is nevertheless unreasonable, I’d invite you again to post your thoughts why
Click to expand...

This is nothing to do with the EFL regulations. People seem to think this starts and ends at what the EFL say.

The EFL arbitration process is still governed by law. The appropriate law in the Uk is the Arbitration Act 1996. The section under which Southampton might feel they have a claim is section 33 which is the general duties applicable to an arbitration. They are essentially the basis for natural justice and fair process.

Southampton can’t challenge specific substantive basis for the decision, can’t challenge just the timelines etc… but they could challenge the arbitration award (Outcome) if they can make a case that there is a serious irregularity which specifically includes the arbitrations general duty for fairness.

If I was Saints lawyer I’d be looking at specifically is it fair to reduce down a standard 14 day period to considerably less in the case of the original hearing and to less then 24 hours for the appeal (If it is why is 14 days determined as appropriate as standard?). And is it fair to offer Saints an appeal route which requires them to file an appeal prior to receiving the full written outcome from the original panel (Essentially offering them to file an appeal without full written rationale for the decision).

All the comments about the EFL guidelines, whether they have a unilateral right to change timelines etc… become irrelevant. If Southampton took a S68 challenge to the arbitration award all they would be challenging is whether what the EFL did was fair and the benchmark for that would be natural justice. Whether they had a right to do it per their guidelines is irrelevant for how this test is applied and the need for expediency would not be a justification to adopt a fundamentally unfair process (Not saying it is unfair but the EFL would have to have other justification for why shortening timelines etc… we’re still fair rather then just simply the need of when the final had to be held).

I don’t know if Southampton will take it further, I think it would be highly unlikely to succeed. But contrary to some of the views on this board they would have a mechanism to do it via the Arbitration Act. Crucially to do it they need to first challenge the process in the appeal itself so the fact the Southampton Echo Journo says they were planning to appeal on the process itself is the biggest indication to me that this is at least what they are considering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top